First of all, as part of the Transportation Improvement Program biennial update and Regional Transportation Plan amendment process all of the local jurisdictions submitted proposed changes that might affect air quality. For some reason, DDOT always includes planned bike lanes but no one else does. As noted in previous updates, addition on this list doesn't mean that these roads will get bike lanes, only that they might. DDOT submitted 8 road diets that would add bike lanes, many of which are not new.

Meanwhile, MDOT presented options for lane sharing for cyclists in case they decide not to build a shared use path on the new Nice Bridge over the Potomac downstream from DC.

MDOT and MDTA are not ruling out a barrier separated shared use path, but a barrier separated facility cannot be guaranteed during the closed procurement process without seeing what the innovative design proposals are and exploring other workable alternatives.

One idea is to just let cyclists take the lane. This would include Bicycle-compatible bridge joints, warning signs, and Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS) like bicycle warning beacons.

They point to other bridges with high speed where it is not illegal to bike such as the Hatem Bridge and the US1 Bridge over Conowingo Dam, North of I-95 at Cecil & Harford Counties to show that it is "common in Maryland" and it can work. [No doubt it CAN work, but does it work well?] Hatem Bridge, they note has more car traffic than the Nice Bridge is expected to.

They also mentioned that on the Virginia side improvements end a half mile from the bridge and beyond that there is only a 2' wide shoulder on US-301. The argument being that even if they put a path on the bridge, cyclists will still have to ride on a dangerous route, but this ignores the fact that US-301 can be changed at some time between now and when this new bridge becomes obsolete.

Other options include converting the existing bridge into a bike/ped bridge, which comes with ownership and maintenance issues (because no one wants to take control of it) but would allow for demolition costs to be transferred to rehabilitation costs; a bicycle taxi system and police escorts for special events. The third is not really a solution and the taxi sounds like an expensive PITA. They expect to pick a final design in the fall.

As a concession last year after significant regional concerns about the changes, the state allowed bidders to offer details about a narrowed but still separated bike and pedestrian path in their bids.

The state has declined to use the cost savings from the construction cuts to pay to keep up the existing bridge as a fishing pier and bike and pedestrian path, and Charles County does not have the $50 million in today’s dollars to do it themselves, county Planning Director Jason Groth said.

“The county remains strong — and we’ve made the same comments since 2009 — that we would like to see separated bike lanes on this bridge,” he said. “One thing that’s key to remember for this particular project is it is a 100-year long bridge. We’re not going to see it rebuilt again.”

State transportation officials have not met with Charles County leaders to talk about the project, Groth said.

“All of our conversation has either been through a letter or here at TPB on this matter,” he said. “I strongly urge MDTA and MDOT to come discuss this item with us, because we are the jurisdiction that is most greatly affected by the decision made on this alternative.”

Rockville Mayor Bridget Newton was not optimistic. “I hope you get a meeting sir. We have not been so lucky on 270,” Newton said. She called it “short-sighted” to not build a separated path.

She also supported the bike path as something important to the economics of the county.

Bike advocates, such as Champe Burnley of the Virginia Bicycling Federation, agree. “The existing Nice Bridge is 80 years old, and we’re going to make a decision here that’s going to last well into the 22nd century,” Burnley said.

On the Virginia side, it could connect to an extended Dahlgren Trail and state park. Without the separate path, even Burnley would be worried about riding over the river in a shared lane.

“I’m a pretty experienced cyclist, and, quite frankly, I don’t think I would ride on that because with 60 mph trucks and cars going through there, not only would I not feel safe, I don’t think anybody would. And I ask you, would you want your spouse, your child, your grandchild riding on that road? I think you probably wouldn’t,” Burnley said.

Last week VDOT held meetings on 495 Next, the Northern Extension of 495's HOT lanes. I think it's a bad idea to widen the area's highways because of global warming and the way that widening highways doesn't work and people dying and stuff, but I'm not going to mention that anymore in this post and I'm just going to focus on what they're looking at for cyclists as part of this project.

They're working with Fairfax County, and using their bike plan as a guide, on creating trails in the corridor, behind the sound wall as well as on-road facilities and improvements at the Live Oak Drive, Georgetown Pike and Old Dominion Drive overpasses.

The trail would start at the end of Lear Road in the Shakespeare part of McLean. A short section would run from Lear to Snow Meadow Lane, to be built by someone else (?). It also shows a short spur continuing along the toll road.

At Snow Meadow, trail users would cross Lewinsville Road and then get back on the trail, which would stay on the west side of 495 all the way to Georgetown Pike. Along the way there would be connections to Timberly Court and Old Gate Court through Timberly Park The project would construct a sidepath along Old Dominion Drive. Everything south (to the left below) would be built by somebody else (Who is this generous person?). I highlighted the trail to make it more visible

The 3 foot wide sidewalk on Old Dominion Drive would be upgraded to a 10 foot wide MUT with a barrier. The MUT would go from Dulany to a point past Dominion Court.

Another upgraded bike/ped facility would get the trail across 495 at the Georgetown Pike, where the trail would switch to the east side, inside the Beltway. Inside the Beltway it will run on the west side of Balls Hill Road to Live Oak. I'm surprised there are no connections to Spencer Road or Peter Place (highlighted in red) in this section. The project will build everything to Live Oak, but then north of that it is someone else(?)

There's currently no sidewalk along Georgetown Pike over 495, but this plan adds a 10 foot wide MUT with a barrier here too. The plan should include extending the MUT on the Pike east to Cooper Middle School and Deer Run Drive.

After Live Oak, the trail would run along the inside of the Beltway, crossing under the GW Parkway and it's ramps down to the American Legion Bridge which it would someday cross - one would hope - to the C&O Canal Towpath. On the drawing below, the trail ends at about the same place that a Mount Vernon Trail would end according to the 2002 expansion study NPS did. That trail would hit this trail just south of it's terminus. It would cool if they built the first few feet of it to the "disturbance limit" or even better the section all the way to Turkey Run.

Live Oak Drive has a sidewalk now, and would appear to get a wider one in this plan.

So it's great that they have some plans to add a trail along this section. It would be great if someone else wasn't building so much of it, and if they added a few more connections. And it would be really great if they weren't doing the thing I'm not talking about.

Last summer, VDOT announced that they were planning to expand the 495 Express Lanes to the American Legion Bridge, where they would eventually connect to one Maryland is proposing. Yesterday they announced a deal to do so. Since the summer they've been working on the Environmental Assessment, which should be ready soon according to the schedule laid out in June. Setting aside the wisdom of expanding the Beltway, what opportunities could such a project create for cyclists?

VDOT is coordinating with Maryland, which is looking at a variety of design options for its portion of I-495 and the American Legion Bridge.

which is not particularly confidence building.

But despite the ALB which Virginia can punt to Maryland, there are quite a few bike facilities in the Fairfax County Bike Plan for this area, and the project should address many if not all of them. I mean it might not, but it should. The project area extends along 495 from Dolley Madison Blvd/123 to the ALB and along the Dulles Toll/Access Road from Spring Hill Road outside the Beltway to Dolley Madison inside of it. If they aren't going to do these things in conjunction with this major project, when will they.

On the north side, there are four facilities in the bike plan that pass through the study area.

Most notable is the shared-use path the commenter asked about. This project should build the path with in the project area and all the way along the George Washington Parkway at least to Dead Run, where the NPS study proposed a crossing of the Parkway connecting to Heather Brook Drive. That's not in the bike plan, but it should be. If not, then it should be extended to Turkey Run Park. In the short term, so that it's not a dead-end, it could pass under the bridge to Live Oak Drive creating a new critical connection. That's not explicitly in the bike plan but should be. The trail could replace the current Potomac Heritage Trail in the area.

Fairfax County Bike Plan map for north 495

The bike plan also puts sharrows on Balls Hill and Live Oak Drive north of Georgetown Pike (we can do better, especially if the Live Oaks Drive Bridge needs to be rebuilt); bike lanes on Balls Hill south of the Pike; and a striped shoulder on Old Dominion Drive. Again we can do better if the Old Dominin Drive Bridge is replaced. [Old Dominion Drive is the ROW of the old W&OD railroad, BTW]

Fairfax County Bike Plan map for Tysons area

In the Tysons area, the projects from the bike plan area much bigger. There's a pair of bridges over the Beltway at Jones Branch Road - but that's already under construction (the new bridge/road will include on-street bike lanes in each direction and an 8- to 12-foot-wide lighted sidewalks)

There's also a shared use path along Dolley Madison and a shared use path from Freddie Mac Center, over the Dulles Toll and Access Roads/267 to Northwyck Court. The path bridge over 267 is obviously the big ticket item.

I don't see any comment opportunities right now, but bike advocates should be ready to make their case for these items when the EA comes out.

This is another long one. It's more than 80 miles from Germantown, around DC, across Prince George's County and down to the Morgantown Generating Station next to the Middleton Bridge (formerly Nice). Most of the way, it's pretty far out from DC too far to connect with any existing trails, but it intersects with the WB&A trail and 14 other corridors on the way, many of which are part of this series. Unlike other corridors on this list, there is an existing plan to put a trail on a several miles of this corridor.

Montgomery County

On the west end, the trail starts at the recently opened PEPCO trail (Utility Corridor #1 in the plan and #7 on this list) near South Germantown Recreation Park in Montgomery County. The new Montgomery County Bike Plan places a trail on the entire corridor in the county from there to the Prince George's County line. The plan calls this "Utility Corridor #2". This alone would be a ~24 mile long trail. It was pass to the north of Gaithersburg and end just north of Burtonsville.

Prince George's County

In PGC it crosses through more developed areas, a trail would have to cross I-95, the Route 1 corridor, the BW Parkway and the Patuxent Research Refuge. These are difficult, but not impossible barriers. Then it crosses through Bowie to the WB&A Trail and south to within a short distance of Six Flags and Andrews Air Force Base. This part would not be relatively east to build on, even though it has a few barriers like US-50 and Pennsylvania Avenue. South of Pennsylvania Avenue, the corridor crosses Rosaryville State Park and Cedarville State Forest before leaving the county. There is no technical reason why a trail can't be built the whole way across the county on the corridor, a PG Cross-County Trail if you will. It would be amazing.

Charles County

Charles County is out of my usual service area, but the opportunity to take a trail right to the base of the Middleton Bridge, which should get a bike-ped crossing over the Potomac when rebuilt, is too appealing to pass on. In Charles, the corridor travels to the east of the more developed parts like Waldorf which increases it's ease of construction but would need connectors to improve its utility. A connection to the Indian Head Rail Trail, 3 miles away, would be key, for example. The corridor does pass over SOME farm land, but there is room to easily go around that. The corridor defines the border of the Zekiah Swamp Natural Environment Area (which might mean boardwalks) and the Allen Fresh Natural Area and then past Newburg to the bridge. Here again there is not a lot of built on land that would prevent a trail.

It's not impossible to believe that a trail could be built across all three counties, connecting to a new Potomac River Crossing on one end, a recently built and soon to be expanded bridge on the other; and to a major trail and more than a dozen other power corridors along the way. I wouldn't count on making the trip anytime soon, but if it were done it would be spectacular.

Last month, NPS announced that they were going to improve the 14th Street Bridge Connector Path that connects East Basin Drive to the 14th Street Bridge sidepath.

The project will widen and improve the trail surface, correct a dangerous slope along the path and improve the crosswalks and crosswalk markings across East Basin Drive. At the same time, a two-way cycle track will be installed in one lane of East Basin Drive where it passes the Jefferson Memorial, providing a dedicated and protected route for cyclists.

Unfortunately it required them to close the existing connector and detour the trail onto the adjacent stairs and for 6 days to close it entirely.

The improvements to the 14thStreetBridge connector are a cooperative effort of the National Park Service, the District Department of Transportation and the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). The $275,000 project being funded primarily from a Transportation Alternatives Program grant from FHWA.

I'm not sure how much DDOT is involved in this. I heard about it years ago when NPS presented it to the BAC. At the time there was no mention of a detour. At the September BAC meeting I seem to recall it came up and we were told that the support for the highway sign that lands in the middle of the trail would not be removed as part of this project, which we asked for back when NPS presented.

The detour started on 9/24 and supposed to last 10 weeks. When I went out there I was able to use the side of the stairs like a runnel, but I guess that others had trouble with that because about a month afterwards NPS installed a metal runnel for cyclists to use. It'd be nice to know if this was an afterthought, a reaction to complaints or something they'd always planned but weren't able to coordinate well.

There aren't a lot of good options here as I see it. The stairs, even with the runnel, represent an inconvenient detour to some and impossible barrier to others - and of course the full closure is a barrier to all. NPS obviously couldn't figure out a way to keep the trail open in the gap where the trail normally goes - and I don't know enough about their space requirements to second guess that.

That leaves two options:

a) build a temporary protected bike lane on the bridge outside of the current trail, similar to what was done on the Custis recently;

b) or build a shorter one that somehow gets to the trail before crossing the bridge.

The temporary PBL would either remove a traffic lane or narrow all the lanes and move them to the left using the 5' shoulder that's there now. Shifting and narrowing would mean temporarily re-striping the whole bridge. And both options would mean building ~3000 feet of barrier and connector trails at each end.

The other option is a little more crazy and might not even work. That would be to build one connector trail east of the construction site and use the shoulder on the ramp to get around the construction; and then somehow transition back to the trail before the railing starts. Lots of problems with that. One is that the shoulder narrows to about 1 foot wide before getting past the construction site. Then there's the matter of the concrete barrier between the road and the landing at the top of the stairs. So they'd need to either remove some/all of the guardrail further down the ramp and then build a narrow, temporary trail along the guardrail and the barrier OR build a pair of ramps to lift the trail over the guardrail. And that only works if the construction has the space to spare (since the temporary trail is inside their zone). Otherwise, they'd need to extend the bypass all the way to the landing and then get over the concrete barrier (or remove a section of it) which would require removing some of a lane of 395 or narrowing it anyway.

It's tempting to look at the Custis bypass and think that this is the same situation, but there are more than a few ways those projects differed. The Custis bypass didn't take a lane of interstate, for starters. It was about half as long in distance and the closure time was a little longer. And perhaps most importantly there wasn't an option (the stairs in this case) that served 90% of trail users readily available. All of this is to say that it cost less, caused less disruption for others and had more benefits. That doesn't mean that the temporary bypass on I-395 isn't worth it, just that the numbers aren't as favorable. In the case of the Custis it made sense, but for another Custis trail closure this year - something like that didn't.

I don't have any of the information I'd need in order to say that one option is better than the other. Here are some things I'd need to know:

How much would each option cost and would there even be money for it?

What effect would closing a lane or narrowing the lanes have on traffic?

Would narrowing lanes violate safety requirements?

Would it even be possible to take the lane - especially through the ramp from the bridge to the GW Parkway - safely?

Could space be made available on the south west edge of the construction for a bypass?

How long would it take to construct/remove a bypass?

How many trail users are impacted and what is the nature of that impact? (Some are inconvenienced, others take a different route and for some this trail is effectively closed)

When I eyeball it, I think NPS probably landed on the best of several bad options, but like I said - I don't know. Sometimes to repair Metro it has to be closed. Sometimes to repair a road it has to be closed and sometimes to repair a trail it has to be closed.

It would have been nice if they had put out a closure plan and asked for comments. And then maybe we could have asked NPS all of these questions at some kind of public forum. If that had happened someone might have pointed out that a runnel would be nice (It wasn't until halfway through the project that it was installed. I had no problem using the concrete edge of the staircase, but I'm guessing others did, hence the runnel. It's possible that even with a public meeting no one would have thought of the runnel until after the detour was in effect, but we'll never know).

Which brings us to the question of Safe Accommodation. The Bicycle Safety Amendment Act of 2013 requires construction projects to obtain permits from DDOT for projects that block sidewalks, bike lanes, or other pedestrian or bicycle paths to provide safe accommodations for pedestrians and bicyclists. I'm actually not sure if that applies to NPS. DC adopted regulations for that in 2014. Those regulations can be found here.

Specifically, (emphasis mine)

The term “safe accommodation” means a safe and convenient route for pedestrians and bicyclists that ensures an accommodation through or around a work zone that is equal to the accommodation that was provided to pedestrians and bicyclists before the blockage of the sidewalk, bicycle lane, or other public bicycle path.

And when ticking down the options - which seem more applicable to bike lanes - these are the two that seem relevant.

(3) Closing the adjacent motor vehicle travel lane to provide space for a bicycle lane; provided that a minimum of one (1) motor vehicle travel lane shall remain in the same direction of travel;

(5) As a last resort, detouring bicyclists onto an adjacent roadway, in which case the detour route shall replicate, as closely as practicable, the level of safety found on the bicycle route being blocked.

The Custis trail option does meet the requirements of (3) assuming it could be done safely, and I suppose one could argue that the stairs are not as safe as the old trail. In addition, the regulations require that blocking a pedestrian path complies with the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 and I would not be surprised if this doesn't.

And there doesn't appear to be any waiver process. So either this law doesn't apply to NPS, DC never gave them a public right-of-way occupancy permit or they gave them one even though they aren't in compliance with the law.

So I'm in the position of thinking that NPS probably got the best solution, though I'm not sure of it and that it might be violating the law. Which is all kind of wishy-washy.

But there's one more issue and that's the timing. I'd love to know why this had to be done at a time when it overlapped the Memorial Bridge closure. But I don't, because again - there was no public meeting for this.

That's where I am. I don't know if this was the right detour or if the timing was necessary, but I'm certain there should have been some public vetting of this beforehand

Addendum: I forgot one other idea. Do two projects. First replace the stairs with a ramp. Then fix the trail and make the ramp the detour. A ramp where the stairs are would be better anyway in my opinion. But, of course, that would require a lot more money.

The six-lane bridge will be narrowed down to three lanes by 4 a.m. Monday as crews get to work on the meat of a $227 million renovation project for the 86-year-old span across the Potomac River.

Prep work has been underway for several months with a staging area set up adjacent to the George Washington Memorial Parkway and Mount Vernon Trail near the bridge.

The detour for cyclists is on the map at the top. But I suspect many trail users will use the billygoat path instead. We'll see if there are any crashes as a result.

Keep an eye out for directional signage as the construction work may necessitate sporadic changes in the walk and bike lane locations. Access points for both pedestrians and cyclists will be available from the Mount Vernon Trail, Metro, or Arlington National Cemetery from Virginia.

The project began in August and MVT users have already seen impacts to the trail area.

Cyclists and pedestrians on the Mount Vernon Trail may also experience delays during this process. While the trail won’t close, the equipment will be passing over the trail and workers onsite will be directing traffic on the trail.

The bridge’s sidewalks show de-lamination and spalling of the concrete surface, and displacement of the granite curbs. Aluminum structures have already been placed across sections of the bridge’s sidewalks to protect pedestrians from falling at deteriorated areas.

Since no bike facilities will be added, the only thing of relevance to cyclists are the sidewalks. There, the rehabilitation is going to consist of removing and replacing the sidewalks with exposed aggregate finish to match the existing exposed aggregate finish in texture and color. Personally, I don't care for aggregate finish. I think it makes for a rough and, when wet, slippery ride. I would have preferred dividing the sidewalk into two parts, with an asphalt section for cyclists, but that's not happening.

WTOP recently reported, as was mentioned here in January, that the Maryland Transportation Authority is considering removing the bike/ped path from the new Gov. Harry W. Nice Memorial Bridge, which is the last bridge over the Potomac River before it gets to the Chesapeake. Cyclists would be allowed to/required to cross in the regular travel lanes. Pedestrians would have no way to cross.

The smaller bridge would be cheaper, a factor which could be more important after Maryland cut tolls a few years ago.

The savings would be $60 million.

The originally selected alternative announced in 2012 promised two lanes for cars each way and a 10-foot-wide path that would have provided enough room for people walking or biking in opposite directions, and was estimated to cost close to $1 billion.

In a draft memo, the planners raise significant concerns about safety if people riding bikes are told to share a lane with speeding cars on the bridge, especially given the steep slopes needed to create enough room for large ships to pass underneath the bridge.

Even if people do use it, growing traffic beyond the millions of vehicles that use the bridge each year now could lead to restrictions on when people can bike across the bridge, restricting commuter options even as new trails are added on either side, the report said.

If there is no separate path, it also means people will not be able to walk across the bridge between Maryland and Virginia.

MDTA estimates about 50 people would bike across the bridge each day, and no one would walk.

The estimates are based on numbers from the Wilson Bridge's bike path.

In 2013 the trip count on the Wilson Bridge helped inform the MDTA forecast for bike trips on the Nice Bridge. Mr. Patton asked if there could be a spike on the week-ends. Mr. Mr. [Will] Pines [of MDTA] replied that there numbers were an average. There was a question about the hours bikes are allowed on the Hatem Bridge; apparently it is daylight and non-rush hours. Bike usage on the Hatem Bridge is very low. The bike community has also been dodging the tolls by hopping onto the sidewalk.

Currently many bicyclists on the Hatem Bridge dodge the toll. Counts on the Hatem are very low, just one or two riders per month. Mr. Brenner replied that if the accommodation were better, the counts would likely be higher. They are much higher on the Wilson Bridge, and the majority of the people are pedestrian, often tourists. Mr. Patton said that focusing on commuters was the wrong way to look at it. Done right, a bicycle and pedestrian path on a bridge can be a major attraction. It’s mistaken to look at ridership under very hostile conditions as indicative of what ridership might be under better conditions.

At the May TBP meeting people wondered if collecting tolls from cyclists was more trouble than it's worth. Or if maybe a coin basket/honor system would work better.

If there are 50 cyclists per day, every day for the 100 year life of the bridge, then that would mean they were spending about $32 per bike crossing. If 50 is right. As noted by one person at the May meeting, Virginia is planning to extend the Dahlgren Rail Trail to the bridge and Charles County wants to extend bike facilities to it as well, meaning the numbers could go up. In a typical exchange, the MDTA representative defending the choice of dropping the path says that the Dahlgren expansion is not in VDOT's 6-year plan, but bike advocates say it's not in the 6 year plan, because there is no bridge right now to extend the trail to. Chicken meet egg. Mr Pines went on:

Of the 6,000 people who watched the video, only 10% offered comments. Only 15 comments came from people living within 10 miles of the bridge, and some of those were opposed to the bike path, calling it a waste of money.

Based on the low local interest, MDTA does not think that a bike path will be a major commuter facility or economic driver. The people who will actually use this bridge don’t care about a bike path.

The TPB and Charles County leaders would like to see the path included.

With a planned 100-year lifespan of a replacement bridge, this represents a once-in-100-years opportunity to provide such a bicycle and pedestrian connection, with important community and economic benefits. Including a bicycle and pedestrian connection would also be consistent with the TPB’s adopted Complete Streets policy. Additionally, the Charles County Commissioners’ letter asked for consideration of keeping and repurposing the existing Harry Nice Bridge as a bicycle and pedestrian facility.

That's the first I've heard of the idea of reusing the old bridge for bikes and peds. Such a facility would likely be better.

Unfortunately the successful opening of the Hatem Bridge is working against cyclists here

Working with the bike community successfully on lane sharing on the Hatem Bridge has opened the door to using that approach on the Nice Bridge.

But the TPB doesn't see it as a perfect match.

The Hatem seems relatively flat, and so might offer a different bicycling experience than the Nice Bridge. Bicyclists might have trouble maintaining high speeds on the uphill portion of the Nice Bridge.

if a bicyclist is going 7 mph on the uphill portion, because that’s as fast as they can go, cars are going to be catching up with them a lot faster than if they’re riding 20 mph on the flat. It makes for a very different riding experience. If there is a dedicated path the bicyclist can safely stop to rest, or enjoy the view. Having cars on your tail is a very different experience from a dedicated path.

And then there's this exchange

Mr. Pines noted that the uphill grade on the Tour de France is as much as 11%, versus 4% on the Nice Bridge. Mr. [John] Wetmore [of Perils for Pedestrians] asked if the expected user would be a world-class bicyclist athlete, or the family rider

Mr. Wetmore added that on the Hatem the bicycle community’s preferred option would be to add a cantilevered shared use path. The preferred option is a separated facility that would provide 24 hour access to all levels and abilities.

The full Transportation Planning Board is scheduled to discuss pushing for the path at a meeting Oct. 17.

In other news, the date for choosing a design has slipped from 2018 to late 2019, but the opening day is still listed as 2023, so we'll see.

The rehabilitation of the Arlington Memorial Bridge received funding late last year with major construction to start in the fall of 2018. The new bridge will not, however, have protected bike lanes as WABA advocated for back in 2016. The project will, by design, return the bridge to the state of good repair it was in prior to the current deterioration with efforts made to match the current look. The deterioration has caused NPS to put in temporary structures at points.

The bridge’s sidewalks show de-lamination and spalling of the concrete surface, and displacement of the granite curbs. Aluminum structures have already been placed across sections of the bridge’s sidewalks to protect pedestrians from falling at deteriorated areas.

Since no bike facilities will be added, the only thing of relevance to cyclists are the sidewalks. There, the rehabilitation is going to consist of removing and replacing the sidewalks with exposed aggregate finish to match the existing exposed aggregate finish in texture and color. Personally, I don't care for aggregate finish. I think it makes for a rough and, when wet, slippery ride. I would have preferred dividing the sidewalk into two parts, with an asphalt section for cyclists, but that's not happening.

The other relevant part to cyclists who use the bridge is closures. The project will result in the removal of the center bascule, and rehabilitation of the other sections. This will result in either closures of one side of the bridge or the other for 490 days and closure of the whole bridge for 70 days; or closures of one side of the bridge or the other for 560 days.

Capital Bikeshare is slated to widen its reach in 2018 with the addition of more than 100 stations, hundreds more bikes and a larger coverage area — investments that are worth more than $5 million of federal, local and private funds.

next year’s expansion, officials say, [will] put Capital Bikeshare’s distinctive red bikes in new territory from National Harbor to Hyattsville in Maryland, and Reagan National Airport and Falls Church in Virginia.

In Prince George’s, officials say they are reviewing vendor contracts before putting in an order for up to 325 bikes and 35 stations that will roll out in the spring.

Alexandria is planning to submit a $650,000 order for equipment this fall, including 10 more docking stations to be installed next spring. The city has funds for 50 stations through 2020, but officials say they will evaluate bike-sharing needs next year before proceeding.

Montgomery, which will have 73 stations at the end of the year, is planning about $660,000 in program expansion in 2018. That includes eight stations in the White Flint and Twinbrook areas and a seven-station network planned for the Rock Spring area of North Bethesda.

And Arlington is moving to acquire 15 more stations next year, including one for the airport.

At this month's DC Bicycle Advisory Committee someone announced that CaBi at DCA was going to happen by the end of the summer (I think. I'm going by memory.)

In both options the facility would link to the Mount Vernon Trail (or at least "could"). Neither facility looks like it's designed for cycling (more pedestrian oriented) but it may be that cycling will be allowed. I don't expect the connection to be as crowded as the photos show.

There are no renderings of the MVT connections, but it looks like maybe they would be elevators (sigh).

The presentations also notes some possible upgrades to the current MVT spur (which would be "investigated" in the short term, but built ????). These improvements include widening the MVT spur's CSXT underpass, widening the George Washington Parkway underpass with a new tunnel adjacent to the current underpass, and adding a spur from the MVT to the airport garage.

The planning, design and environmental review process is scheduled to take 6 years so don't get too excited about this now.

A new, better connection between the MVT and DCA would be great as the current one is a little hard to follow. And I would love some better bike parking. Perhaps a cage or "pod" like this. Combine that with bike share and a bridge and it could be an easy bike trip for many.

While the streetcar is getting some bad press due to the recently reported need for new cars, planning for the expansion of the streetcar continues and heading east that means some improved bike facilities along Benning Road. Back in November, DDOT presented the latest design alternatives, which aren't too different from what was presented in May, but there is some new/different information. After the May meeting, it appears they received many comments asking that biking be made better in the corridor.

In both alternatives, cyclists would use a shared-use path on the south side of Benning Road from Oklahoma Avenue to Minnesota Avenue but it would differ in width. East of Minnesota Avenue, Benning would have sidewalks.

In alternative 1, which has the streetcar running in the outside lanes, the sidepath would be 10 to 11 feet wide.

Alternative 2, with a center running streetcar, would be similar, except that from Anacostia to 36th, the 10' shared use path would have an additional 3 foot buffer. [Note: it appears that there is an error on the Alt 2 sheet. In the "typical section" drawing for the Kingman Island stop, the drawing shows an 8' wide side path, but the text beneath it says there is a 10' wide sidepath. It doesn't seem like both can be right.]